MOOT PROBLEM – 1

On 3.11.2003 in the evening, Raj Preet Kaur @ Guddi, who was about eight years old, and a
student of IInd Standard went to the house of her classmate and cousin, Amarpreet Kaur. At
about 5.00 p.m., she left from there to return to her house. She was accompanied to some
distance by Amarpreet. When she crossed pakka water house, Amarpreet left her on her own.
Raj Preet Kaur was last seen with Amrit Singh, a 30 year old neighbour. She was seen walking
holding his finger. When Raj Preet Kaur did not reach her house, search was carried on. Some
persons then found her dead body in the agricultural field belonging to Amrit Singh situated in
front of his house. The dead body was found near a tree and some cotton crop was found near
the dead body. Some dry leaves were found in her hair. In her hand some strands of human hair
were also noticed. It was fully smeared with blood. There was bleeding from vulva and the legs
were also stained with blood. Body was in state of rigor mortis. There were multiple marks of
contusions and abrasions on the neck. Face also had some abrasions. Abrasions over elbows and
knuckles were present. There were impressions of teeth on the lips. These were all ante mortem
in nature. Although external injuries were found on the neck which were said to be the cause of
death of the deceased, according to the doctor, the death took place because of loss of blood. It
was stated by him:-
"20% loss of blood may cause shock and death. Normally in a child of 6-7 years age there may
be about 2 litres blood in body. On examination of injuries it was found that more bleeding from
the injury has caused the death. In this case more than half litre blood had oozed..."
Amarjit was prosecuted for rape and murder. The lower court convicted him on both the counts
and sentenced him to death penalty which was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the
Supreme Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment. The
Supreme Court noted that-
Appellant, a neighbor and known to her was a person of trust. She was seen to be
holding Appellant's finger. It is clear that she was allured by Appellant to
accompany him to his own field which was near his house…. Offence of rape took
place on an agricultural field. She might have suffered a lot of pain. She might
have resisted also. She might have been gagged. Possibilities of some assault on her
person cannot be ruled out. It would, however, be improper to hold that he killed
her intentionally…. The death occurred not as a result of strangulation but because
 of excessive bleeding. The death occurred, therefore, as a consequence of and not
because of any specific overt act on the part of Appellant.
Imposition of death penalty in a case of this nature, in our opinion, was, thus,
improper. Even otherwise, it cannot be said to be a rarest of rare cases. The manner
in which the deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a
momentary lapse on the part of Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place.
He had no pre-meditation for commission of the offence. The offence may look
heinous, but under no circumstances, it can be said to be a rarest of rare cases.
The judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on 10-11-2006. The media reports decried
the judgement for condoning the ghastly rape as ‘a momentary lapse’ especially when the
offence was committed on a very young girl by a person in the relationship of trust with the
victim and it caused uproar among women organizations across the country. Fourteen national
level women organizations came together and filed a petition in the Supreme Court under the
banner of ‘Network Against Gender Bias’ (NAGB) on 11-12-06 and sought review of the
aforementioned judgement. They are praying for deletion of the sentence “The manner in which
the deceased was raped may be brutal but it could have been a momentary lapse on the part of
Appellant, seeing a lonely girl at a secluded place” from the judgement as being unreasonable
justification for the most horrendous and unacceptable behavior of the convict. They are also
praying that death penalty to Amrit Singh should be restored as it is a rarest of the rare case
involving murder of a very young girl of only eight years after diabolically and brutally raping
her by a person who was in a relationship of trust with the victim child.

Appellant- 1247, 1274, 1276, 1278, 1279, 1282.

Respondent- 1283,1284,1286,1292,1296,1298.
 MOOT PROBLEM - 2
Arohi was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu boy. He married Aruna in the year 1977. Aruna
gave birth to a daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in 1980. They were happy at the thought that
their family was complete. However, in unfortunate turn of events, their son died in an accident
at home when he was two years old. They were very upset but tried to have another child and
with God’s grace, Aruna gave birth to another son in the year 1983. Looking at his horoscope,
the pandit suggested special ritual to be followed every month for the welfare of this son till the
age of five as there was danger to his life till that time. Despite observance of the ritual with full
reverence by the couple, this son also died in a road accident just as he turned five years old. The
couple was completely devastated. They were apprehensive that another child may meet the
same fate if they tried for another child. However, they tried and yet another son was born to
them third time in the year 1990. On his naming ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and
were advised to give away that child in adoption to a person of the lower caste if they wanted
this child to live. They named him Kaushal and decided to give him in adoption. Their sweeper,
Maina Devi, a 50 year old widow with no children agreed to take the child in adoption and to
give him back to them for his bringing up as she did not have the means to bring him up.
In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Arohi and Aruna and was
taken by Maina Devi. Thereafter, she gave him back to the couple for bringing him up on her
behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting them regularly and gave something for Kaushal every month till
he was ten years old when she died. In the meanwhile, in the year 1994 another son was born to
Arohi and Aruna and he was named Balraj.
The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Arohi and Aruna as a formality to save
his life and he was brought up by Arohi and Aruna as their son with Mala and Balraj. Arohi died
intestate in the year 2012. Aruna decided to divide the property in four equal shares, one each for
herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala and Balraj objected to it and demanded 1/3 share in the
property as Kaushal had no right having been given in adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna’s pleas
that the adoption was a mere ritual carried out on the advice of the astrologer to save Kaushal’s
life but without any intention actually to give him up, had no effect on them. They maintained
that the adoption was legal and complete when Kaushal was given and taken in adoption with a
free will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj filed a suit for division of property and
declaration that Kaushal was not an heir to any property of Arohi in the absence of a will.
The lower court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal filed an appeal
 against the order asking for an equal share to Kaushal in the suit properties being the natural born
son. They pleaded that the adoption was not valid in the absence of the intention to really give
him in adoption. Alternatively, they pleaded that the adoption was bad as Aruna’s consent was
vitiated having been given under the mistaken belief that it was a religious ceremony aimed at
saving the life of her son. In addition, it was submitted that an adoption that put the child in
situation of deprivation cannot be held valid and binding being contrary to the principle of best
interest of the child.

Appellant- 1299, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305

Respondent- 1307, 1308, 1309, 1312, 1313, 1316
 MOOT PROBLEM - 3
Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana and
lived in the town. His village was at a distance of 12 kms. from his workplace which he
ordinarily visited on Saturdays and Sundays.
Sher Shah was a farmer who lived with his family consisting of his wife, Sobti, son
Gajendar Shah and a daughter Naina. Sher Shah’s brother, Suri Shah, also lived in the same
household. He was used to drinking and gambling and owed a debt of Rs. 20,000 to Karim.
Whenever Karim demanded his money, Suri Shah showed his helplessness but never denied to
pay off his debt. Karim was in love with Naina and used to meet Naina on the weekends when
her father was not at home on the pretext that he had come to collect the money. Sher Shah did
not like it and told Karim many a times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded his
daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did not stop visiting Naina.
During the day on Monday, 8th August 2010, Karim received a phone call from Suri Shah
inviting him to come that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house around 8.30
P.M. The members of Naina’s family had finished their dinner and were preparing to go to sleep.
On hearing some whispering voices coming from the backyard of their house, Sher Shah with his
brother Suri Shah and son Gajendar Shah went there to investigate.
They saw Karim talking with Naina. Sher Shah lost his temper and started abusing
Karim. Gajendar Shah brought a lathi from inside and gave a blow to Karim on the leg. Then
Suri Shah grabbed the lathi from Gajendar Shah and started beating Karim mercilessly giving
blows on his head and chest.
On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the scene. They found Suri Shah
giving blows to Karim while the other two were shouting abuses on Karim. Karim was bleeding
from the head and became unconscious. He was taken to the hospital by the villagers where he
died three days later without regaining consciousness. The post-mortem report confirmed that
Karim suffered injuries on the head and fractures of three ribs. There were many concussions on
different parts of his body. There was much loss of blood. While none of the injuries
independently was sufficient to cause death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher Shah under Section 307
read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Three days later when Karim died, it was changed to
Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session court charged and convicted all the three accused persons
under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of
Karim. The accused persons pleaded grave and sudden provocation in their defense. They also
pleaded that the prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all the three
accused to kill Karim. In the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted
under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.
The three accused have filed separate appeals to the High Court against the order of
conviction and sentence. You may choose to represent any party/ parties in this appeal keeping in
mind that you do not violate the principle of conflict of interests.
Appellant Suri Shah- 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320
Appellant Gajender Shah- 1322, 1323, 1324, 1326
Appellant Sher Shah- 1331, 1335, 1339, 1340
 MOOT PROBLEM - 4
Mr. Swaroop, a Hindu and Ms. Honey, a Christian married in April, 2003 under Special
Marriage Act, 1954. As they did not have any child till 2006, Swaroop proposed to adopt a girl
child of one year old, in January 2007, who was none other than Swaroop’s own sister’s
daughter, who was already having two daughters and Honey reluctantly agreed for it. The girl
was given in adoption by her natural father to Swaroop. The child was named as Kranti. But
post-adoption, Honey was very much particular that they should have a child of their own genes.
So they planned to have a child through surrogacy and in consultation with Dr. Morris in Delhi a
surrogacy agreement was entered with Ms. Neeta and they got a surrogated boy child, born on 1 st
September, 2008. As Honey wanted to name the child as James and Swaroop wanted to name
him as Rahul, the naming ritual was postponed for some time. Unfortunately Mr. Swaroop was
involved in an accident and died on 15 thOctober, 2008. Honey started calling the child as James
and got the name registered as James in the birth certificate.
When Swaroop’s father, Ashok Lal, expressed that Kranti was entitled to a share in the property
of Swaroop, Honey and her father replied that the said adoption was not valid as Honey was a
Christian who could not adopt under Christian law and hence Kranti would not get any share in
Swaroop’s property. Swaroop’s father filed a suit on behalf of his grand-daughter, Kranti, for a
share in Swaroop’s property in the District Court and for a declaration that James is not entitled
to any share in his father’s property as he is neither the natural or adopted son of Swaroop. The
court through its order dated 1st April, 2009 held that there was a valid adoption and the adopted
child, Kranti, would be entitled to a share in Swaroop’s property as Swaroop was entitled to
adopt as per Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and his Christian wife’s consent was
irrelevant as per proviso to S.7 of the said Act. The District Court refused to declare that James
was not entitled to a share in Swaroop’s property. Honey preferred an appeal before the High
Court of Delhi challenging the validity of adoption on the ground that since their marriage was
performed under Special Marriage Act, 1954, Swaroop had lost his right of adoption as a Hindu.
She also has requested the Court to declare that James has the same rights available to a natural
born child as he was conceived with Honey’s egg and Swaroop’s sperm.
Appellant- 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346
Respondent- 1347, 1348, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353
 MOOT PROBLEM - 5
Reema, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12 th class. She belonged to a lower middle
class family. Her father used to work as a clerk in a private firm. She had always been an
ambitious and a very bright student. To support her father she used to give tuitions. Ramesh,
Accused No.1, math’s teacher of Reema in her school secretly developed emotions for her.
Reema had always admired him as her teacher. On Reema’s 18 th birthday Ramesh organized a
birthday party for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware of Ramesh’s
feelings Reema accepted the same.
On 14th Feb 2013, Ramesh proposed to Reema for marriage. Reema, however, told him to speak
to her parents regarding the same. On 20th Feb Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal.
However, they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore as they did not want
that there should be any kind of distraction to their daughter as her XII boards were approaching.
They strongly admonished Reema and threatened that they will discontinue her studies.
Thereafter she started avoiding Ramesh. On one occasion Reema also made it clear to him that
she will not go against the wishes of her parents and asked him not to follow her anymore.
Despite the disinterest shown by Reema, Ramesh continued to follow Reema to her tuition
classes and contacted her personally, on phone and through internet, believing that all her actions
were under pressure from her parents.
Reema reported the same to her parents. The parents rebuked him for his unwarranted acts. He,
however, tried to convince them about his feelings for her and further stated that he wanted to
marry her. They beat him and asked him to leave.
Enraged with the feeling of dejection, Ramesh went to Mahesh in whom he always confided and
narrated the whole thing. Mahesh, aged 45, has always supported Ramesh, who was residing
with him, ever since his parents died in a road accident in 2000. Mahesh, who had always treated
Ramesh as his son, could not bear the pain of Ramesh. Mahesh suggested to Ramesh that he
should find Reema alone and take her to the temple for marrying her without information to her
parents. In case Reema would offer any resistance due to parental pressure, Mahesh will threaten
her with a bottle of acid to pressurize her to come with them to the temple.
Ramesh, who was initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be
caused to Reema and bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to
their wishes.
On 23rd march, 2013 as per the plan, finding Reema passing on a lonely road, Ramesh and
Mahesh, who were waiting for Reema, got out of the car. Ramesh approached Reema and asked
her to accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Reema’s refusal, Mahesh
carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Reema. Ramesh started dragging her into the car. Reema
started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to Reema, Mahesh opened the bottle and threw the
acid on her face and then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the car belonging to and driven
by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain. The girl was taken to the hospital by some
passerby. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were
grievous. FIR was lodged. Statement of Reema was recorded. A case was registered against both
the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec
354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was
arrested by police from his home and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime, were seized
from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the Sessions Court, where he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Court convicted Ramesh under section 326A r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced
him to 10 yrs of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation to Reema to the
tune of Rs 2,00,000/- to be paid immediately. He was also awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2
years under Section 354D, IPC, 1860. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the High Court seeking acquittal.
Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding life imprisonment and also the enhancement of the
amount of compensation taking into account the following facts:
 Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on the 6 major surgeries done till date;
 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;
 Despite various surgeries Reema has permanently lost her left eye vision;
 Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but also deep
inside her memory which will adversely affect her future prospects;
 Her father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on a leave for
her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are two other sisters of Reema who also need to
be supported.
High court adjudicated in favor of the accused by acquitting him from the charges under Secion
326A r/w Section 34 and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of the state, being bereft
of any substance by holding that under the circumstances of the case the trial court had wrongly
 held the accused liable under Section 326A, IPC 1860, by invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no
common intention to commit offence of Acid Attack under Section 326A could be proved. The
High Court held that the offence of stalking under Section 354D was also not made out against
the accused. The High Court, however, recommended the District Legal Services Authority to
decide upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim
as per Section 357A, Cr PC within one month.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused, the State filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the
fact that common intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh have agreed to the use of bottle
of acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention. The
state appealed for considering the offence as heinous and to award life imprisonment under Sec
326A r/w Section34 and Section 354D and also to enhance the compensation awarded by the
Sessions Court to be paid by the accused to the victim under Section 326A, IPC, 1860 in addition
to the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec 357A Cr PC. The State also
sought permission for addition of charge under Sec 366 IPC.
Appellant (State)-1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359
Respondent-1360, 1361, 1363, 1366, 1368, 1369
 MOOT PROBLEM - 6
Arjun was seventeen years old in 1995 when he forcibly kissed Pinki, a sixteen years old girl
in his school he was very attracted to. Pinki filed a case of sexual assault against him. After
seventeen years of the case pending before a Magistrate, he was convicted and sentenced to six
months of simple imprisonment in 2012 and a fine of Rs.1000/- In this period, both Arjun and
Pinki had settled well in their respective families after marriage and both have their own
children. Arjun has a steady job and this imprisonment will cause him his job.
His appeal to the Sessions Court and the High Court was dismissed in quick succession on the
ground that offences against women were on the rise and needed to be dealt with severe
punishment.
Arjun filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on sentence. He prayed for setting aside of the
sentence of imprisonment under the IPC and sought release on probation either under the
Probation of Offenders Act 1958 or under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000. The Supreme Court in
June 2016 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the magistrate.
Arjun has filed a review petition against this decision praying for setting aside of the punishment
imposed on him. He is arguing that the sentence of imprisonment is against all principles of
sentencing and also not in consonance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 under
which his offence is classified as a petty offence.
Appellant – 1370, 1371, 1372, 1373, 1375, 1376
Respondent- 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1290